youtube_video

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only inspection operation through 'Retrieve' and 'inspect', and clarifies that it only determines transcript availability rather than returning transcript text. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, but these are less critical for a single-parameter read tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, followed by a direct usage note. No filler or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers what it does and when to use it. The only minor gap is not naming the transcript alternative, but the phrasing 'determine if spoken transcripts are available' adequately signals that boundary.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents video_id with type and format ('11-character YouTube video ID or full YouTube URL') at 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action (retrieve) on a specific resource (metadata for a specific YouTube video) and enumerates the data categories returned (statistics, tags, chapters, caption availability). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like youtube_search and youtube_transcript, which address different tasks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit use context: 'Use this tool to inspect... chapters and determine if spoken transcripts are available.' However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as using youtube_transcript for actual transcript content.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.